Sir Elton John v
Times Newspaper Ltd [2012] EWHC 2721 (QB)
Sir Elton John, the singer/songwriter and chairman of the
Elton John Aids Foundation took legal action against The Times newspaper, regarding
two articles it published in June 2012.
The articles were part of The
Times’ investigation into tax avoidance schemes. The newspaper had stated,
albeit not expressly – as Sir John’s lawyers later accepted – that Mr. Patrick
McKenna, an accountant at Ingenious Media, had arranged offshore tax avoidance
schemes for clients; one of the latter being Sir John.
However the following day a
correction was published by the newspaper, and a second on the 26 June,
confirming that Sir John was indeed not a client of Mr. McKenna, nor did
Ingenious Media at any point offer to transfer his money offshore in an effort
to avoid paying tax.
Alleging the damage had
already been done, Sir John filed a claim against the paper averring the
articles were “severely damaging” to his reputation and charity work. The articles, he said, meant that he had
engaged in, or was reasonably suspected to be or have been, engaged in “immoral
tax avoidance”; or there were grounds for an investigation into whether he was involved
with such schemes.
In rejecting these arguments,
Mr. Justice Tugendhat concluded in his short oral judgment given on 10 October,
that: “the words complained of are not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by the claimant or
any other defamatory meaning”.
In his full written judgment,
Mr. Justice Tugendhat stated that Sir John’s claim that the articles meant he
was or reasonably suspected of being engaged in tax avoidance: was “so lacking
any possible basis that it is totally to be rejected”.
Moreover, in response to Sir
John’s argument that the articles provided grounds for an investigation, Mr.
Justice Tugendhat agreed with Counsel for The Times, Manuel Barca QC, that the newspaper’s
readers were more highly educated than the “hypothetical reasonable reader” and
would have more discriminating judgment than is usually recognised by the
courts.
Although in his ruling the
judge said it was understandable that Sir John would take exception to such
articles being published, this was not relevant to the question he had to
decide.
Whilst Counsel for The Times confirmed
this was now the end of the matter; lawyers for the singer/songwriter declined
to say whether they were seeking an appeal.
Read the judgment here .